Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33250544›Full record

ArticleScientometrics2021

Applying advanced technologies to improve clinical trials: a systematic mapping study.

Esther Nanzayi Ngayua, Jianjia He, Kwabena Agyei-Boahene

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientometrics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Esther Nanzayi NgayuaSchool of Business, University of Shanghai for Science and Technology, Shanghai, 200093 China.ORCID 0000-0001-5161-158X
Jianjia HeSchool of Business, University of Shanghai for Science and Technology, Shanghai, 200093 China.ORCID 0000-0001-5987-3605
Kwabena Agyei-BoaheneSchool of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, 200092 China.ORCID 0000-0003-1799-071X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The increasing demand for new therapies and other clinical interventions has made researchers conduct many clinical trials. The high level of evidence generated by clinical trials makes them the main approach to evaluating new clinical interventions. The increasing amounts of data to be considered in the planning and conducting of clinical trials has led to higher costs and increased timelines of clinical trials, with low productivity. Advanced technologies including artificial intelligence, machine learning, deep learning, and the internet of things offer an opportunity to improve the efficiency and productivity of clinical trials at various stages. Although researchers have done some tangible work regarding the application of advanced technologies in clinical trials, the studies are yet to be mapped to give a general picture of the current state of research. This systematic mapping study was conducted to identify and analyze studies published on the role of advanced technologies in clinical trials. A search restricted to the period between 2010 and 2020 yielded a total of 443 articles. The analysis revealed a trend of increasing research interests in the area over the years. Recruitment and eligibility aspects were the main focus of the studies. The main research types were validation and evaluation studies. Most studies contributed methods and theories, hence there exists a gap for architecture, process, and metric contributions. In the future, more empirical studies are expected given the increasing interest to implement the AI, ML, DL, and IoT in clinical trials.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceClinical trialsDeep learningInternet of thingsMachine learning

Identifiers

PMID33250544
PMCPMC7680218

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.